How to Design a Great Ad
A great advertisment must bring over a clear and definite message in just a few seconds and leave it in their minds.Some easy step you should fallow while creating one:
1.Keep it simple! There is not much time to keep people focused on our brand. You can achieve this by using clear visuals. You have to come to the point.
2.As mentioned in step one, the visual is very important. It is the first thing catches a person's attention!
3.Show how your product is useful to the consumer. Consumers are not interested in buing a product, they are interested in what it can do for them.
4.Don't just tell what your product can do - use examples of what it is able to do
5.Use Metaphors to help the consumer understand your service. It fills your product with meaning
6.Entertain and engage your customer with something new and original.
http://www.ehow.com/how_2066244_design-great-ad.html
Monday, 15 June 2009
Monday, 8 June 2009
Sunday, 7 June 2009
ex 3
Andy Burnham backs get-fit campaign to trim NHS costs
Sarah Boseley, health editor
Sunday 7 June 2009
Making the country more active should be a fundamental part of what the National Health Service is about, according to the new health secretary, Andy Burnham.
In his first interview after taking on the job vacated by Alan Johnson, who was appointed home secretary in Friday's government reshuffle, Burnham told the Guardian that spending money to help people get fit and stay so was "a long-term insurance policy" that could help cut the soaring bills incurred by the NHS in treating obesity-related disease such as diabetes and heart conditions.
Burnham said he wanted primary care trusts to put more money into swimming, gym sessions and cycling, in the belief that disease prevention had to become a big focus of the cash-limited NHS.
"I will make it a personal priority to embed in the NHS culture the promotion of physical activity," he said.
"I want to signal from day one a very big and large green light to every primary care trust in the country that it's not a risky or a frowned-upon thing to start putting money into physical activity promotion … There has been a sense I think out there that it's a little bit of a sideline, but the time has come to really attack that much more aggressively."
Burnham moves from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, where he worked with Johnson to launch a nationwide scheme in which children and elderly people would be able to use swimming pools free of charge.
But even as a junior health minister two years ago, Burnham argued the benefits of promoting exercise for the country's health and for the NHS budget. The prevailing view at that time, he said, was that the NHS did not "really fund that".
He said that attitude had begun to shift significantly under Johnson, who launched the Change4Life awareness campaign.
"I will want to put my full weight behind that," Burnham said. "For the NHS, that is the direction it's got to go‚ a prevention service to keep people healthy in the first place.
"Our levels of physical activity are significantly behind some other European countries'. There is so much more we can do.
"The Olympic period and all the focus on sport is the time [to do it]; this is the moment to make a decisive change around people's sport and physical activity's role in our national life."
Some trusts were already supporting gyms and swimming pools, the MP for Leigh in Greater Manchester said.
It was a difficult challenge and "people might also say this won't bear fruit for five, 10 or 15 years, but it has to be the right thing to do for the long term".
Sarah Boseley, health editor
Sunday 7 June 2009
Making the country more active should be a fundamental part of what the National Health Service is about, according to the new health secretary, Andy Burnham.
In his first interview after taking on the job vacated by Alan Johnson, who was appointed home secretary in Friday's government reshuffle, Burnham told the Guardian that spending money to help people get fit and stay so was "a long-term insurance policy" that could help cut the soaring bills incurred by the NHS in treating obesity-related disease such as diabetes and heart conditions.
Burnham said he wanted primary care trusts to put more money into swimming, gym sessions and cycling, in the belief that disease prevention had to become a big focus of the cash-limited NHS.
"I will make it a personal priority to embed in the NHS culture the promotion of physical activity," he said.
"I want to signal from day one a very big and large green light to every primary care trust in the country that it's not a risky or a frowned-upon thing to start putting money into physical activity promotion … There has been a sense I think out there that it's a little bit of a sideline, but the time has come to really attack that much more aggressively."
Burnham moves from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, where he worked with Johnson to launch a nationwide scheme in which children and elderly people would be able to use swimming pools free of charge.
But even as a junior health minister two years ago, Burnham argued the benefits of promoting exercise for the country's health and for the NHS budget. The prevailing view at that time, he said, was that the NHS did not "really fund that".
He said that attitude had begun to shift significantly under Johnson, who launched the Change4Life awareness campaign.
"I will want to put my full weight behind that," Burnham said. "For the NHS, that is the direction it's got to go‚ a prevention service to keep people healthy in the first place.
"Our levels of physical activity are significantly behind some other European countries'. There is so much more we can do.
"The Olympic period and all the focus on sport is the time [to do it]; this is the moment to make a decisive change around people's sport and physical activity's role in our national life."
Some trusts were already supporting gyms and swimming pools, the MP for Leigh in Greater Manchester said.
It was a difficult challenge and "people might also say this won't bear fruit for five, 10 or 15 years, but it has to be the right thing to do for the long term".
ex 2
'Timebomb' of Britons unaware they have HIV
Senior doctors accuse Department of Health of failing to take virus seriously and neglecting to test high-risk groups
June 6, 2009
Marie Woolf
More than 20,000 people with HIV are unaware they are carrying the virus and are infecting thousands of others, setting a devastating health “timebomb”, medical experts have warned.
Senior doctors have accused the Department of Health of failing to take the spread of HIV seriously and neglecting to test enough people in high-risk groups, including gay men and heterosexual black Africans.
HIV specialists say they are seeing people in clinics with full-blown Aids who have no idea they have been carrying the virus. They now want all sexually active people to be routinely offered an HIV test.
The Lancet medical journal has published an editorial accusing ministers of an “appalling failure to tackle HIV” and of having “no credible strategy to diagnose and care for those living with, but unaware of, HIV in Britain”.
The Health Protection Agency (HPA), the government’s health watchdog, warned that about 77,000 people in the UK have HIV but 21,000 of these do not know they are infected. In 2007, the number of infections through heterosexual contact increased to 960, up from 540 in 2003.
Doctors warn that a third of people with HIV are being diagnosed when their virus is advanced. One London hospital recently treated two teenage sisters, one of whom was pregnant, infected with HIV from the same man. Hospitals are also concerned about men who are diagnosed with HIV but abscond before they can be treated.
They called on the government to take testing more seriously, warning that an A&E target to treat patients within four hours meant people with early symptoms of HIV were not being tested in emergency rooms because of time pressure.
Dr Phillip Hay, reader in HIV medicine at St George’s hospital in Tooting, south London, said testing for the virus should be routine to stop its spread through unprotected sex.
He said: “We have identified some people who have infected multiple individuals”, including couples “where there is a big difference in age between an older adult and a teenager. All men and women accessing medical care should be routinely offered a test”.
The HPA said high-risk groups should be targeted for testing.
“It is a matter of concern that so many individuals in the UK are unaware that they are HIV-infected,” it said.
The Department of Health said HIV prevention was still a priority.
Senior doctors accuse Department of Health of failing to take virus seriously and neglecting to test high-risk groups
June 6, 2009
Marie Woolf
More than 20,000 people with HIV are unaware they are carrying the virus and are infecting thousands of others, setting a devastating health “timebomb”, medical experts have warned.
Senior doctors have accused the Department of Health of failing to take the spread of HIV seriously and neglecting to test enough people in high-risk groups, including gay men and heterosexual black Africans.
HIV specialists say they are seeing people in clinics with full-blown Aids who have no idea they have been carrying the virus. They now want all sexually active people to be routinely offered an HIV test.
The Lancet medical journal has published an editorial accusing ministers of an “appalling failure to tackle HIV” and of having “no credible strategy to diagnose and care for those living with, but unaware of, HIV in Britain”.
The Health Protection Agency (HPA), the government’s health watchdog, warned that about 77,000 people in the UK have HIV but 21,000 of these do not know they are infected. In 2007, the number of infections through heterosexual contact increased to 960, up from 540 in 2003.
Doctors warn that a third of people with HIV are being diagnosed when their virus is advanced. One London hospital recently treated two teenage sisters, one of whom was pregnant, infected with HIV from the same man. Hospitals are also concerned about men who are diagnosed with HIV but abscond before they can be treated.
They called on the government to take testing more seriously, warning that an A&E target to treat patients within four hours meant people with early symptoms of HIV were not being tested in emergency rooms because of time pressure.
Dr Phillip Hay, reader in HIV medicine at St George’s hospital in Tooting, south London, said testing for the virus should be routine to stop its spread through unprotected sex.
He said: “We have identified some people who have infected multiple individuals”, including couples “where there is a big difference in age between an older adult and a teenager. All men and women accessing medical care should be routinely offered a test”.
The HPA said high-risk groups should be targeted for testing.
“It is a matter of concern that so many individuals in the UK are unaware that they are HIV-infected,” it said.
The Department of Health said HIV prevention was still a priority.
ex 1
Patient dies after ambulance driver diverts to depot en route to hospital - to finish his shift
By Paul Sims
A critically-ill patient died after a callous paramedic took a detour en route to hospital - so that he could end his shift.
He drove his ambulance to a local depot to swap over with another crew, insisting that he was already 15 minutes late clocking off.
His diversion added half a mile to the journey and meant precious minutes that could have been vital in saving his patient's life were lost.
He even failed to notify his replacement that 69 year old Ali Asghar, who had suffered a stroke, was deteriorating and close to death.
The ambulance finally arrived at hospital 35 minutes after the 999 call was made, but by then it was too late.
Mr Asghar, a father of four, died of a heart attack soon after being taken into accident and emergency.
Last night, the unnamed paramedic was facing the sack.
He and his colleague, an advanced technician who was treating the patient in the back of the ambulance, have both been suspended and could be dismissed if found guilty of gross misconduct.
An independent investigation has since been launched into the incident on May 18.
Mr Asghar's youngest son, Mohammed, 33, said he was not aware of the delay in the ambulance arriving at hospital but added: 'If that has happened it shouldn't have.
'What's more important: your shift or a person who is dying?
'I used to be a bus driver and no matter if my shift was about to end I would carry on working.
'If your shift went over by a minute it didn't matter.
'If you had passengers on the bus it was your duty to drop them off.
'If you have a patient in an ambulance you don't worry about your bloody shift finishing.
'The driver should not get away with it. He should have to pay for it. He is responsible for the death.
'The time he took to detour could have saved my father's life.'
Paul Liversidge, director of operations at North East Ambulance Service (NEAS), said he had spoken to the family and branded the suspended driver 'a rogue paramedic'.
'It doesn't really matter how long the delay was - it could have been 30 seconds or five minutes. It's a delay that simply shouldn't have happened,' he said.
He said the ambulance service received a 999 call at 3.52pm and immediately gave it 'Category A' status because Mr Asghar's condition was life-threatening.
The ambulance arrived at 3.57pm and remained at the address in Stockton, Cleveland, until 4.13pm ahead of what is usually a 10-minute journey to hospital.
But once in the ambulance the driver decided that instead of heading straight to North Tees Hospital - 3.3 miles away - he would return to the Grangefield depot.
Leaving the patient in the back of the ambulance with the technician the paramedic disappeared and a new driver took the wheel.
The detour lengthened the journey to the hospital to 3.8 miles and added approximately four minutes, a spokesman for the NEAS said.
When Mr Asghar arrived at hospital his condition had deteriorated. He died a short time later from a heart attack.
The delay was reported by the new driver who was just starting his shift and took over at the wheel from his colleague.
Mr Asghar, of Pakistani origin, was married to Fremeda, 57.
The couple's eldest son, Mohabbot Asghar, 39, a gas engineer, also from Stockton, was in the ambulance with his father.
He said he was not aware of any delay in the ambulance getting to the hospital and insisted the paramedics were trying to save his father the entire journey.
He said: 'It's a procedural matter for the ambulance service.
'I am happy that they were working on my father all the way to the hospital. I was not aware of any delay.'
Mr Liversidge added: 'This incident was immediately reported to us by another member of staff and as soon as we were notified, we acted to suspend a paramedic and an advanced technician from duty.
'We appointed a senior officer to carry out a full investigation of the incident and have notified the North East Strategic Health Authority, Stockton-on-Tees Teaching Primary Care Trust and the Health Professions Council of our actions.
'There was an avoidable delay. How long that delay was is irrelevant. It simply should never have happened. As far as we are concerned this has come totally out of the blue. When you consider our business there will be times when paramedics are nearing the end of their shift when they receive a call.
'It happens. But even if that did occur we expect the crew to follow through and deliver the patient to hospital without any delays.'
He said they were liaising with the family and would keep them informed of any developments.
'Patient care is our number one priority and we treat any action which falls short of the high standard expected of our staff extremely seriously,' he added.
By Paul Sims
A critically-ill patient died after a callous paramedic took a detour en route to hospital - so that he could end his shift.
He drove his ambulance to a local depot to swap over with another crew, insisting that he was already 15 minutes late clocking off.
His diversion added half a mile to the journey and meant precious minutes that could have been vital in saving his patient's life were lost.
He even failed to notify his replacement that 69 year old Ali Asghar, who had suffered a stroke, was deteriorating and close to death.
The ambulance finally arrived at hospital 35 minutes after the 999 call was made, but by then it was too late.
Mr Asghar, a father of four, died of a heart attack soon after being taken into accident and emergency.
Last night, the unnamed paramedic was facing the sack.
He and his colleague, an advanced technician who was treating the patient in the back of the ambulance, have both been suspended and could be dismissed if found guilty of gross misconduct.
An independent investigation has since been launched into the incident on May 18.
Mr Asghar's youngest son, Mohammed, 33, said he was not aware of the delay in the ambulance arriving at hospital but added: 'If that has happened it shouldn't have.
'What's more important: your shift or a person who is dying?
'I used to be a bus driver and no matter if my shift was about to end I would carry on working.
'If your shift went over by a minute it didn't matter.
'If you had passengers on the bus it was your duty to drop them off.
'If you have a patient in an ambulance you don't worry about your bloody shift finishing.
'The driver should not get away with it. He should have to pay for it. He is responsible for the death.
'The time he took to detour could have saved my father's life.'
Paul Liversidge, director of operations at North East Ambulance Service (NEAS), said he had spoken to the family and branded the suspended driver 'a rogue paramedic'.
'It doesn't really matter how long the delay was - it could have been 30 seconds or five minutes. It's a delay that simply shouldn't have happened,' he said.
He said the ambulance service received a 999 call at 3.52pm and immediately gave it 'Category A' status because Mr Asghar's condition was life-threatening.
The ambulance arrived at 3.57pm and remained at the address in Stockton, Cleveland, until 4.13pm ahead of what is usually a 10-minute journey to hospital.
But once in the ambulance the driver decided that instead of heading straight to North Tees Hospital - 3.3 miles away - he would return to the Grangefield depot.
Leaving the patient in the back of the ambulance with the technician the paramedic disappeared and a new driver took the wheel.
The detour lengthened the journey to the hospital to 3.8 miles and added approximately four minutes, a spokesman for the NEAS said.
When Mr Asghar arrived at hospital his condition had deteriorated. He died a short time later from a heart attack.
The delay was reported by the new driver who was just starting his shift and took over at the wheel from his colleague.
Mr Asghar, of Pakistani origin, was married to Fremeda, 57.
The couple's eldest son, Mohabbot Asghar, 39, a gas engineer, also from Stockton, was in the ambulance with his father.
He said he was not aware of any delay in the ambulance getting to the hospital and insisted the paramedics were trying to save his father the entire journey.
He said: 'It's a procedural matter for the ambulance service.
'I am happy that they were working on my father all the way to the hospital. I was not aware of any delay.'
Mr Liversidge added: 'This incident was immediately reported to us by another member of staff and as soon as we were notified, we acted to suspend a paramedic and an advanced technician from duty.
'We appointed a senior officer to carry out a full investigation of the incident and have notified the North East Strategic Health Authority, Stockton-on-Tees Teaching Primary Care Trust and the Health Professions Council of our actions.
'There was an avoidable delay. How long that delay was is irrelevant. It simply should never have happened. As far as we are concerned this has come totally out of the blue. When you consider our business there will be times when paramedics are nearing the end of their shift when they receive a call.
'It happens. But even if that did occur we expect the crew to follow through and deliver the patient to hospital without any delays.'
He said they were liaising with the family and would keep them informed of any developments.
'Patient care is our number one priority and we treat any action which falls short of the high standard expected of our staff extremely seriously,' he added.
G20 Summit on BBC
THE G20 SUMMIT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/business/2009/g20/default.stm
SUMMIT BASICS
Find out where the protests happened on our live map and see how the G20 summit unfolded on our live text page
Find out the countries in the G20 and their priorities
Check what the main issues were, see the official site and find out what the protesters wanted
See how London's police prepared for trouble and what summit 'sherpas' do
Understand how the global downturn unfolded and get more detail on the UK recession or global picture
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/business/2009/g20/default.stm
SUMMIT BASICS
Find out where the protests happened on our live map and see how the G20 summit unfolded on our live text page
Find out the countries in the G20 and their priorities
Check what the main issues were, see the official site and find out what the protesters wanted
See how London's police prepared for trouble and what summit 'sherpas' do
Understand how the global downturn unfolded and get more detail on the UK recession or global picture
Thursday, 4 June 2009
Wednesday, 3 June 2009
Homework for Monday
Finish articles and editorial. Articles to 500 words and editorial to 600 words please.
Check for appropriate structural application AND the full usage of diction and syntax in line with your particular paper and its audience's requirements.
meet with your group and put your final newspaper together.
Hand your newspaper in to me in class Monday.
Check for appropriate structural application AND the full usage of diction and syntax in line with your particular paper and its audience's requirements.
meet with your group and put your final newspaper together.
Hand your newspaper in to me in class Monday.
exam question
Global Issues
“People have trouble seeing beyond their own garden.” Do you agree? Discuss this quotation in terms of a particular global issue you have studied and propose ways to ensure that people develop a more global perspective.
“People have trouble seeing beyond their own garden.” Do you agree? Discuss this quotation in terms of a particular global issue you have studied and propose ways to ensure that people develop a more global perspective.
Krugman on the Crisis
June 1, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Reagan Did It
By PAUL KRUGMAN
“This bill is the most important legislation for financial institutions in the last 50 years. It provides a long-term solution for troubled thrift institutions. ... All in all, I think we hit the jackpot.” So declared Ronald Reagan in 1982, as he signed the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act.
He was, as it happened, wrong about solving the problems of the thrifts. On the contrary, the bill turned the modest-sized troubles of savings-and-loan institutions into an utter catastrophe. But he was right about the legislation’s significance. And as for that jackpot — well, it finally came more than 25 years later, in the form of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
For the more one looks into the origins of the current disaster, the clearer it becomes that the key wrong turn — the turn that made crisis inevitable — took place in the early 1980s, during the Reagan years.
Attacks on Reaganomics usually focus on rising inequality and fiscal irresponsibility. Indeed, Reagan ushered in an era in which a small minority grew vastly rich, while working families saw only meager gains. He also broke with longstanding rules of fiscal prudence.
On the latter point: traditionally, the U.S. government ran significant budget deficits only in times of war or economic emergency. Federal debt as a percentage of G.D.P. fell steadily from the end of World War II until 1980. But indebtedness began rising under Reagan; it fell again in the Clinton years, but resumed its rise under the Bush administration, leaving us ill prepared for the emergency now upon us.
The increase in public debt was, however, dwarfed by the rise in private debt, made possible by financial deregulation. The change in America’s financial rules was Reagan’s biggest legacy. And it’s the gift that keeps on taking.
The immediate effect of Garn-St. Germain, as I said, was to turn the thrifts from a problem into a catastrophe. The S.& L. crisis has been written out of the Reagan hagiography, but the fact is that deregulation in effect gave the industry — whose deposits were federally insured — a license to gamble with taxpayers’ money, at best, or simply to loot it, at worst. By the time the government closed the books on the affair, taxpayers had lost $130 billion, back when that was a lot of money.
But there was also a longer-term effect. Reagan-era legislative changes essentially ended New Deal restrictions on mortgage lending — restrictions that, in particular, limited the ability of families to buy homes without putting a significant amount of money down.
These restrictions were put in place in the 1930s by political leaders who had just experienced a terrible financial crisis, and were trying to prevent another. But by 1980 the memory of the Depression had faded. Government, declared Reagan, is the problem, not the solution; the magic of the marketplace must be set free. And so the precautionary rules were scrapped.
Together with looser lending standards for other kinds of consumer credit, this led to a radical change in American behavior.
We weren’t always a nation of big debts and low savings: in the 1970s Americans saved almost 10 percent of their income, slightly more than in the 1960s. It was only after the Reagan deregulation that thrift gradually disappeared from the American way of life, culminating in the near-zero savings rate that prevailed on the eve of the great crisis. Household debt was only 60 percent of income when Reagan took office, about the same as it was during the Kennedy administration. By 2007 it was up to 119 percent.
All this, we were assured, was a good thing: sure, Americans were piling up debt, and they weren’t putting aside any of their income, but their finances looked fine once you took into account the rising values of their houses and their stock portfolios. Oops.
Now, the proximate causes of today’s economic crisis lie in events that took place long after Reagan left office — in the global savings glut created by surpluses in China and elsewhere, and in the giant housing bubble that savings glut helped inflate.
But it was the explosion of debt over the previous quarter-century that made the U.S. economy so vulnerable. Overstretched borrowers were bound to start defaulting in large numbers once the housing bubble burst and unemployment began to rise.
These defaults in turn wreaked havoc with a financial system that — also mainly thanks to Reagan-era deregulation — took on too much risk with too little capital.
There’s plenty of blame to go around these days. But the prime villains behind the mess we’re in were Reagan and his circle of advisers — men who forgot the lessons of America’s last great financial crisis, and condemned the rest of us to repeat it.
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
Op-Ed Columnist
Reagan Did It
By PAUL KRUGMAN
“This bill is the most important legislation for financial institutions in the last 50 years. It provides a long-term solution for troubled thrift institutions. ... All in all, I think we hit the jackpot.” So declared Ronald Reagan in 1982, as he signed the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act.
He was, as it happened, wrong about solving the problems of the thrifts. On the contrary, the bill turned the modest-sized troubles of savings-and-loan institutions into an utter catastrophe. But he was right about the legislation’s significance. And as for that jackpot — well, it finally came more than 25 years later, in the form of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
For the more one looks into the origins of the current disaster, the clearer it becomes that the key wrong turn — the turn that made crisis inevitable — took place in the early 1980s, during the Reagan years.
Attacks on Reaganomics usually focus on rising inequality and fiscal irresponsibility. Indeed, Reagan ushered in an era in which a small minority grew vastly rich, while working families saw only meager gains. He also broke with longstanding rules of fiscal prudence.
On the latter point: traditionally, the U.S. government ran significant budget deficits only in times of war or economic emergency. Federal debt as a percentage of G.D.P. fell steadily from the end of World War II until 1980. But indebtedness began rising under Reagan; it fell again in the Clinton years, but resumed its rise under the Bush administration, leaving us ill prepared for the emergency now upon us.
The increase in public debt was, however, dwarfed by the rise in private debt, made possible by financial deregulation. The change in America’s financial rules was Reagan’s biggest legacy. And it’s the gift that keeps on taking.
The immediate effect of Garn-St. Germain, as I said, was to turn the thrifts from a problem into a catastrophe. The S.& L. crisis has been written out of the Reagan hagiography, but the fact is that deregulation in effect gave the industry — whose deposits were federally insured — a license to gamble with taxpayers’ money, at best, or simply to loot it, at worst. By the time the government closed the books on the affair, taxpayers had lost $130 billion, back when that was a lot of money.
But there was also a longer-term effect. Reagan-era legislative changes essentially ended New Deal restrictions on mortgage lending — restrictions that, in particular, limited the ability of families to buy homes without putting a significant amount of money down.
These restrictions were put in place in the 1930s by political leaders who had just experienced a terrible financial crisis, and were trying to prevent another. But by 1980 the memory of the Depression had faded. Government, declared Reagan, is the problem, not the solution; the magic of the marketplace must be set free. And so the precautionary rules were scrapped.
Together with looser lending standards for other kinds of consumer credit, this led to a radical change in American behavior.
We weren’t always a nation of big debts and low savings: in the 1970s Americans saved almost 10 percent of their income, slightly more than in the 1960s. It was only after the Reagan deregulation that thrift gradually disappeared from the American way of life, culminating in the near-zero savings rate that prevailed on the eve of the great crisis. Household debt was only 60 percent of income when Reagan took office, about the same as it was during the Kennedy administration. By 2007 it was up to 119 percent.
All this, we were assured, was a good thing: sure, Americans were piling up debt, and they weren’t putting aside any of their income, but their finances looked fine once you took into account the rising values of their houses and their stock portfolios. Oops.
Now, the proximate causes of today’s economic crisis lie in events that took place long after Reagan left office — in the global savings glut created by surpluses in China and elsewhere, and in the giant housing bubble that savings glut helped inflate.
But it was the explosion of debt over the previous quarter-century that made the U.S. economy so vulnerable. Overstretched borrowers were bound to start defaulting in large numbers once the housing bubble burst and unemployment began to rise.
These defaults in turn wreaked havoc with a financial system that — also mainly thanks to Reagan-era deregulation — took on too much risk with too little capital.
There’s plenty of blame to go around these days. But the prime villains behind the mess we’re in were Reagan and his circle of advisers — men who forgot the lessons of America’s last great financial crisis, and condemned the rest of us to repeat it.
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
